Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

I checkt every file but I couldn't find other licensing taggs so I tend to close this DR as delete. Is there still stuf that needs to be done before the files can be deleted? I don't want to break pages at Wikisource. Natuur12 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have but I doubt that this template applies. They are created by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe and addressed to a representative of the UN and are therefore not created by the UN itself plus some info within the document exists of third party letters. If you think that I am wrong please let me know. Natuur12 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Natuur12: I beg to differ and think that you are confusing the OCSE and the UNMIK material, which is explained within the foreword, that the ombudsperson was set up as part of UNMIK. I believe that you will find that these reports are from the ombudsperson back to establishing office. You will see that I have already deleted the OCSE material. — billinghurstsDrewth 15:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

But they are lised as the author at file:SECOND ANNUAL REPORT 2001 – 2002.pdf. Secondly, if they are created by the ombudsperson they are created by a representive and not the UN itself. We also don't assume that works from UNICEF etc are PD. I won't close this DR untill we agree and if you can't agree I will ask another admin to look into this. Natuur12 (talk) 15:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

It has various levels of lack of clarity. I have no further to add to the DR request. The files are again at enWS in case the decision is to delete, but will be removed their if C decides to keep. — billinghurstsDrewth 07:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Matsievsky, you applied through the process and they weren't assigned by a 'crat. That trumps me, and is actually a better evaluation.

Personally, I still don't have confidence that the renaming guidelines are sufficiently comprehended by you, and instead I believe that I see that personal opinion/agenda as preferred/pursued without respect to the name that the uploader assigned. Where respected admins like @Green Giant, Steinsplitter: are reverting and rejecting multiple requests, one would think that a different approach would be undertaken. Consensus always beats personal opinion. — billinghurstsDrewth 08:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I noted in the deletion discussion, IMO all the images in this series are in scope. Did you nominate any other images from this series for deletion? IMO, any images from this series that were deleted for not being in scope, etc, should be restored. Geo Swan (talk) 11:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

If you believe that they are in scope, then please make them within scope by adding detail that describes the files and allows categorisation. As they are now, they are not. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)